The country of origin of the brake slack adjuster

N339944 May 31, 2024 OT:RR:NC:N2:206 CATEGORY: Origin Laura Oliver A.N. Deringer 173 West Service RdChamplain, NY 12919 RE:  The country of origin of the brake slack adjuster Dear Ms. Oliver: In your letter dated May 6, 2024, you requested a country of origin ruling on the brake slack adjuster, which you filed on behalf of your client, Exxin Canada. The article under consideration is a brake slack adjuster for use in heavy-duty commercial vehicle brakes. The slack adjuster is used to compensate for the brake lining and drum wear as well as to maintain a constant actuator stroke. When the brakes are applied, the rod pushes out on the slack adjuster, which then turns the S-cam to force the brake shoes apart to apply the friction necessary to slow the vehicle. You state that the piston, worm, actuator sleeve, and other hardware components are sourced from China. They are then imported to Vietnam where they are assembled together with the Vietnamese worm gear into the Vietnamese slack adjuster housing. The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article. The "country of origin" is defined in 19 CFR 134.1(b) as "the country of manufacture, production, or growth of any article of foreign origin entering the United States. Further work or material added to an article in another country must effect a substantial transformation in order to render such other country the 'country of origin' within the meaning of this part." The courts have held that a substantial transformation occurs when an article emerges from a process with a new name, character or use different from that possessed by the article prior to processing. United States v. Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc., 27 CCPA 267, C.A.D. 98 (1940); National Hand Tool Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 308 (1992), aff’d, 989 F. 2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Anheuser Busch Brewing Association v. The United States, 207 U.S. 556 (1908) and Uniroyal Inc. v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 1026 (1982). However, if the manufacturing or combining process is merely a minor one that leaves the identity of the article intact, a substantial transformation has not occurred. Uniroyal, Inc. v. United States, 3 CIT 220, 542 F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702 F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Uniroyal). Substantial transformation determinations are based on the totality of the evidence. See Headquarters Ruling (HQ) W968434, date January 17, 2007, citing Ferrostaal Metals Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 470, 478, 664 F. Supp. 535, 541 (1987). In Uniroyal case, the court held that an upper was not substantially transformed when attached to an outsole to form a shoe and that the upper was "the very essence of the completed shoe".In the present case, the manufacturing in Vietnam includes reviewing, warehousing, installing and assembling together, laser inscription, inspecting, cleaning, and testing. Although the processes are not exceedingly complex, the Vietnamese housing, which is specifically shaped to house all components, and the worm gear, also known as a worm wheel, define the character of the brake slack adjuster.  Furthermore, the value of the Vietnamese components and manufacturing processes amounts to over sixty (60) percent of the total cost of the slack adjuster. As a result, it is the opinion of this office that the country of origin for the brake slack adjuster is Vietnam. The holding set forth above applies only to the specific factual situation and merchandise description as identified in the ruling request. This position is clearly set forth in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 177.9(b)(1). This section states that a ruling letter is issued on the assumption that all of the information furnished in the ruling letter, whether directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and complete in every material respect. In the event that the facts are modified in any way, or if the goods do not conform to these facts at time of importation, you should bring this to the attention of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and submit a request for a new ruling in accordance with 19 CFR 177.2. Additionally, we note that the material facts described in the foregoing ruling may be subject to periodic verification by CBP. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, please contact National Import Specialist Liana Alvarez at liana.alvarez@cbp.dhs.gov. Sincerely, Steven A. Mack Director National Commodity Specialist Division